Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51707 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2026 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Sonu Kumar Son of Shivjee Mahto R/o Village- Sondho Kahartoli, P.S.- Goraul, District- Vaishali.

2.

Sumit Kumar Son of Shivjee Mahto R/o Village- Sondho Kahartoli, P.S.- Goraul, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Gorul P.S. Case No. 319 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 44.880 litres of liquor along with country made pistol without cartridge and a country made sixer with removed cartridge chamber.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51707 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/2 petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and they came to be implicated merely for the reason that the alleged recovery was made near the house of the petitioners and they came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that country made pistol was also recovered and investigation in the case is continuing.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T